Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 236 | 51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75) | 50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75) | 51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75) | 0.532 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 238 | 0.316 | |||
f | 194 (82%) | 94 (79%) | 100 (84%) | ||
m | 44 (18%) | 25 (21%) | 19 (16%) | ||
occupation | 238 | ||||
day_training | 6 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
full_time | 26 (11%) | 13 (11%) | 13 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (13%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 42 (18%) | 23 (19%) | 19 (16%) | ||
retired | 57 (24%) | 26 (22%) | 31 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (3.4%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.7%) | 4 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.7%) | 3 (2.5%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 53 (22%) | 28 (24%) | 25 (21%) | ||
marital | 238 | 0.875 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
divore | 26 (11%) | 14 (12%) | 12 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
married | 71 (30%) | 33 (28%) | 38 (32%) | ||
none | 113 (47%) | 58 (49%) | 55 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.3%) | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (8.0%) | 10 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
edu | 238 | 0.622 | |||
bachelor | 48 (20%) | 20 (17%) | 28 (24%) | ||
diploma | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.5%) | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 16 (6.7%) | 9 (7.6%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
primary | 20 (8.4%) | 9 (7.6%) | 11 (9.2%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 65 (27%) | 30 (25%) | 35 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.5%) | 6 (5.0%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
fam_income | 238 | ||||
10001_12000 | 8 (3.4%) | 2 (1.7%) | 6 (5.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (4.6%) | 4 (3.4%) | 7 (5.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (5.0%) | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.1%) | 3 (2.5%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.2%) | 7 (5.9%) | 3 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 40 (17%) | 24 (20%) | 16 (13%) | ||
2001_4000 | 35 (15%) | 17 (14%) | 18 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (13%) | 14 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 21 (8.8%) | 12 (10%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.4%) | 11 (9.2%) | 9 (7.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 45 (19%) | 21 (18%) | 24 (20%) | ||
medication | 238 | 213 (89%) | 106 (89%) | 107 (90%) | 0.833 |
onset_duration | 236 | 15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63) | 14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56) | 15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63) | 0.658 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 234 | 36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72) | 35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72) | 36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68) | 0.682 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2381 | control, N = 1191 | treatment, N = 1191 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 238 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.456 |
recovery_stage_b | 238 | 17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24) | 18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24) | 17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.677 |
ras_confidence | 238 | 29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45) | 29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45) | 30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45) | 0.671 |
ras_willingness | 238 | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15) | 0.763 |
ras_goal | 238 | 17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 0.415 |
ras_reliance | 238 | 13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20) | 0.636 |
ras_domination | 238 | 9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15) | 9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 0.211 |
symptom | 238 | 30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70) | 31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70) | 30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56) | 0.337 |
slof_work | 238 | 22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30) | 22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30) | 22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30) | 0.748 |
slof_relationship | 238 | 25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35) | 24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35) | 25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35) | 0.286 |
satisfaction | 238 | 20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35) | 0.210 |
mhc_emotional | 238 | 10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19) | 0.705 |
mhc_social | 238 | 15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30) | 15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30) | 15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30) | 0.974 |
mhc_psychological | 238 | 21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36) | 21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36) | 0.948 |
resilisnce | 238 | 16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 238 | 13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 0.050 |
els_value_living | 238 | 17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25) | 17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.370 |
els_life_fulfill | 238 | 12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 0.128 |
els | 238 | 29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45) | 30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45) | 0.186 |
social_connect | 238 | 27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48) | 27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48) | 26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48) | 0.382 |
shs_agency | 238 | 14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | 238 | 15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24) | 15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24) | 0.080 |
shs | 238 | 30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48) | 29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48) | 0.098 |
esteem | 238 | 12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20) | 0.701 |
mlq_search | 238 | 14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21) | 14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 238 | 13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21) | 0.496 |
mlq | 238 | 28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42) | 27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42) | 28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42) | 0.278 |
empower | 238 | 19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30) | 19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30) | 0.377 |
ismi_resistance | 238 | 14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 0.844 |
ismi_discrimation | 238 | 11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20) | 0.966 |
sss_affective | 238 | 10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.727 |
sss_behavior | 238 | 10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.759 |
sss_cognitive | 238 | 8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.514 |
sss | 238 | 29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54) | 29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54) | 0.804 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.111 | 2.98, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.118 | 0.157 | -0.426, 0.190 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.050 | 0.150 | -0.244, 0.344 | 0.738 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.292 | 0.213 | -0.125, 0.710 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.272 | 17.5, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.160 | 0.385 | -0.915, 0.596 | 0.679 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.188 | 0.285 | -0.747, 0.371 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.840 | 0.406 | 0.045, 1.64 | 0.040 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.522 | 28.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.739 | -1.14, 1.76 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.645 | 0.483 | -0.301, 1.59 | 0.183 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.33 | 0.687 | -0.021, 2.67 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.194 | 11.2, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.084 | 0.274 | -0.453, 0.622 | 0.760 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.089 | 0.210 | -0.323, 0.500 | 0.673 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.292 | 0.299 | -0.294, 0.877 | 0.330 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.306 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.353 | 0.432 | -0.494, 1.20 | 0.415 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.252 | 0.305 | -0.347, 0.850 | 0.411 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.605 | 0.435 | -0.247, 1.46 | 0.166 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.269 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.380 | -0.569, 0.922 | 0.643 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.309 | 0.255 | -0.190, 0.808 | 0.226 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.510 | 0.362 | -0.200, 1.22 | 0.161 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.221 | 9.58, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.395 | 0.313 | -1.01, 0.218 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.255 | -0.457, 0.543 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.817 | 0.363 | 0.105, 1.53 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.4 | 0.908 | 29.6, 33.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.24 | 1.284 | -3.76, 1.27 | 0.334 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.37 | 0.797 | -2.94, 0.191 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.005 | 1.135 | -2.23, 2.22 | 0.996 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.421 | 21.4, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.193 | 0.595 | -1.36, 0.974 | 0.746 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.279 | 0.410 | -0.525, 1.08 | 0.497 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.452 | 0.584 | -0.693, 1.60 | 0.440 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.526 | 23.6, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.798 | 0.744 | -0.660, 2.26 | 0.284 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.067 | 0.515 | -1.08, 0.943 | 0.897 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.743 | 0.734 | -0.695, 2.18 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.662 | 18.6, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.937 | -0.660, 3.01 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.909 | 0.623 | -0.312, 2.13 | 0.146 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.274 | 0.887 | -1.46, 2.01 | 0.757 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.343 | 10.1, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.185 | 0.485 | -0.765, 1.13 | 0.703 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.427 | 0.299 | -0.160, 1.01 | 0.156 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.162 | 0.426 | -0.997, 0.673 | 0.704 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.562 | 14.2, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.794 | -1.58, 1.53 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 0.509 | -0.336, 1.66 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.013 | 0.725 | -1.43, 1.41 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.647 | 20.6, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.059 | 0.916 | -1.74, 1.85 | 0.949 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 0.591 | -0.062, 2.25 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.386 | 0.841 | -2.04, 1.26 | 0.647 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.403 | 15.5, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.723 | 0.569 | -0.394, 1.84 | 0.205 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.850 | 0.412 | 0.043, 1.66 | 0.041 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.646 | 0.586 | -0.503, 1.80 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.260 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.706 | 0.368 | -0.016, 1.43 | 0.056 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.148 | 0.262 | -0.662, 0.366 | 0.573 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 0.373 | -0.261, 1.20 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.293 | 16.3, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.370 | 0.415 | -0.444, 1.18 | 0.374 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.351 | 0.290 | -0.217, 0.918 | 0.227 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.313 | 0.412 | -0.495, 1.12 | 0.449 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.306 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.664 | 0.433 | -0.185, 1.51 | 0.126 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.254 | 0.283 | -0.300, 0.808 | 0.370 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.301 | 0.402 | -0.487, 1.09 | 0.455 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.556 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.786 | -0.506, 2.57 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.626 | 0.495 | -0.344, 1.60 | 0.208 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.592 | 0.704 | -0.789, 1.97 | 0.402 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.847 | 25.9, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 1.198 | -3.38, 1.31 | 0.389 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.140 | 0.735 | -1.58, 1.30 | 0.849 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.85 | 1.046 | -4.90, -0.802 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.465 | 13.1, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.941 | 0.657 | -0.347, 2.23 | 0.153 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.433 | 0.401 | -0.354, 1.22 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.367 | 0.571 | -0.753, 1.49 | 0.521 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.378 | 14.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.958 | 0.535 | -0.091, 2.01 | 0.075 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.546 | 0.354 | -0.147, 1.24 | 0.125 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.271 | 0.504 | -0.716, 1.26 | 0.591 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.805 | 27.8, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 1.138 | -0.331, 4.13 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.981 | 0.695 | -0.380, 2.34 | 0.160 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.628 | 0.989 | -1.31, 2.57 | 0.526 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.147 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.084 | 0.208 | -0.491, 0.323 | 0.686 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.147 | 0.189 | -0.517, 0.222 | 0.436 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.105 | 0.269 | -0.421, 0.631 | 0.696 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.317 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.448 | -0.274, 1.48 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.868 | 0.359 | 0.165, 1.57 | 0.017 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.777 | 0.511 | -1.78, 0.225 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.385 | 12.6, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 0.545 | -0.690, 1.45 | 0.488 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.926 | 0.404 | 0.133, 1.72 | 0.023 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.130 | 0.575 | -1.26, 0.998 | 0.821 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.638 | 26.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.983 | 0.902 | -0.785, 2.75 | 0.277 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.80 | 0.679 | 0.466, 3.13 | 0.009 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.900 | 0.966 | -2.79, 0.994 | 0.353 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.414 | 18.2, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.586 | -0.636, 1.66 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.943 | 0.399 | 0.160, 1.73 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.312 | 0.568 | -1.43, 0.802 | 0.584 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.234 | 14.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.331 | -0.716, 0.582 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.397 | 0.281 | -0.154, 0.947 | 0.160 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.483 | 0.400 | -0.301, 1.27 | 0.229 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.282 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.017 | 0.399 | -0.798, 0.764 | 0.966 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.534 | 0.332 | -1.19, 0.117 | 0.110 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.556 | 0.473 | -1.48, 0.371 | 0.241 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.338 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.478 | -0.770, 1.11 | 0.726 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.485 | 0.320 | -1.11, 0.142 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.623 | 0.456 | -1.52, 0.270 | 0.173 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.344 | 9.54, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.151 | 0.486 | -1.10, 0.802 | 0.756 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.719 | 0.317 | -1.34, -0.098 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.048 | 0.451 | -0.932, 0.835 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.74 | 0.344 | 8.07, 9.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.328 | 0.487 | -0.626, 1.28 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.561 | 0.319 | -1.19, 0.064 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.555 | 0.454 | -1.44, 0.334 | 0.223 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.967 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.368 | -2.34, 3.03 | 0.801 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.72 | 0.820 | -3.33, -0.117 | 0.037 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 1.167 | -3.48, 1.09 | 0.308 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(372) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(372) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34], t(372) = 0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71], t(372) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(372) = 66.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.60], t(372) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.37], t(372) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.04, 1.64], t(372) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.02, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(372) = 57.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(372) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.59], t(372) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.67], t(372) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-3.68e-03, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(372) = 59.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(372) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50], t(372) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88], t(372) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.83], t(372) = 56.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(372) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.85], t(372) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.46], t(372) = 1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(372) = 48.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(372) = 0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.81], t(372) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.22], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(372) = 45.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(372) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.54], t(372) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [0.11, 1.53], t(372) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.04, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.58, 33.14], t(372) = 34.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.27], t(372) = -0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.19], t(372) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.24e-03, 95% CI [-2.23, 2.22], t(372) = -4.62e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = -5.37e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.44, 23.09], t(372) = 52.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(372) = -0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.08], t(372) = 0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.60], t(372) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(372) = 46.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(372) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.94], t(372) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.18], t(372) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(372) = 30.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.13], t(372) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.01], t(372) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.44], t(372) = 31.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.13], t(372) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.01], t(372) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.67], t(372) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.45], t(372) = 27.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(372) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.66], t(372) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.41], t(372) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -2.13e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(372) = 33.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.85], t(372) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.46e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.25], t(372) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-8.87e-03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.26], t(372) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.08], t(372) = 40.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.84], t(372) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.04, 1.66], t(372) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [9.70e-03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.80], t(372) = 1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(372) = 50.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(372) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.43e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.37], t(372) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.20], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(372) = 57.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(372) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.92], t(372) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.12], t(372) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(372) = 40.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(372) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.81], t(372) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.09], t(372) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.48], t(372) = 52.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(372) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.60], t(372) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.97], t(372) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(372) = 32.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(372) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.30], t(372) = -0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.85, 95% CI [-4.90, -0.80], t(372) = -2.73, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(372) = 30.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(372) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22], t(372) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.49], t(372) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(372) = 40.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.01], t(372) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.24], t(372) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.26], t(372) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(372) = 36.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(372) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.38, 2.34], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.57], t(372) = 0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(372) = 87.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(372) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22], t(372) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.63], t(372) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(372) = 45.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(372) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [0.16, 1.57], t(372) = 2.42, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.22], t(372) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.56, 14.07], t(372) = 34.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(372) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [0.13, 1.72], t(372) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.03, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.00], t(372) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(372) = 43.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.75], t(372) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [0.47, 3.13], t(372) = 2.65, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.99], t(372) = -0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.19, 19.81], t(372) = 45.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.66], t(372) = 0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [0.16, 1.73], t(372) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.80], t(372) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(372) = 61.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.58], t(372) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.95], t(372) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.27], t(372) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(372) = 41.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.76], t(372) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.12], t(372) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.37], t(372) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(372) = 30.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(372) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.14], t(372) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.27], t(372) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.89], t(372) = 29.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.80], t(372) = -0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.34, -0.10], t(372) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.84], t(372) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.07, 9.41], t(372) = 25.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(372) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.06], t(372) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.33], t(372) = -1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.47, 31.26], t(372) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(372) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.33, -0.12], t(372) = -2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.09], t(372) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,203.328 | 1,215.133 | -598.664 | 1,197.328 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,204.127 | 1,227.737 | -596.064 | 1,192.127 | 5.201 | 3 | 0.158 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,827.539 | 1,839.344 | -910.769 | 1,821.539 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,827.959 | 1,851.568 | -907.979 | 1,815.959 | 5.580 | 3 | 0.134 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,301.581 | 2,313.386 | -1,147.791 | 2,295.581 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,289.334 | 2,312.943 | -1,138.667 | 2,277.334 | 18.247 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,576.686 | 1,588.491 | -785.343 | 1,570.686 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,578.819 | 1,602.428 | -783.409 | 1,566.819 | 3.867 | 3 | 0.276 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,907.509 | 1,919.313 | -950.754 | 1,901.509 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,903.570 | 1,927.179 | -945.785 | 1,891.570 | 9.939 | 3 | 0.019 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,799.357 | 1,811.162 | -896.679 | 1,793.357 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,793.242 | 1,816.852 | -890.621 | 1,781.242 | 12.115 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,698.110 | 1,709.915 | -846.055 | 1,692.110 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,692.991 | 1,716.600 | -840.495 | 1,680.991 | 11.120 | 3 | 0.011 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,695.254 | 2,707.059 | -1,344.627 | 2,689.254 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,694.401 | 2,718.010 | -1,341.200 | 2,682.401 | 6.854 | 3 | 0.077 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,137.012 | 2,148.817 | -1,065.506 | 2,131.012 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,139.433 | 2,163.042 | -1,063.716 | 2,127.433 | 3.580 | 3 | 0.311 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,306.983 | 2,318.787 | -1,150.491 | 2,300.983 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,309.150 | 2,332.759 | -1,148.575 | 2,297.150 | 3.833 | 3 | 0.280 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,474.870 | 2,486.675 | -1,234.435 | 2,468.870 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,473.290 | 2,496.900 | -1,230.645 | 2,461.290 | 7.580 | 3 | 0.056 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,953.245 | 1,965.050 | -973.622 | 1,947.245 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,956.370 | 1,979.979 | -972.185 | 1,944.370 | 2.875 | 3 | 0.411 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,336.626 | 2,348.431 | -1,165.313 | 2,330.626 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,339.370 | 2,362.979 | -1,163.685 | 2,327.370 | 3.257 | 3 | 0.354 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,447.417 | 2,459.222 | -1,220.709 | 2,441.417 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,448.610 | 2,472.220 | -1,218.305 | 2,436.610 | 4.807 | 3 | 0.186 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,131.071 | 2,142.876 | -1,062.536 | 2,125.071 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,117.712 | 2,141.321 | -1,052.856 | 2,105.712 | 19.359 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,786.161 | 1,797.966 | -890.081 | 1,780.161 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,784.409 | 1,808.019 | -886.205 | 1,772.409 | 7.752 | 3 | 0.051 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,871.637 | 1,883.441 | -932.818 | 1,865.637 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,869.711 | 1,893.320 | -928.855 | 1,857.711 | 7.926 | 3 | 0.048 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,887.046 | 1,898.850 | -940.523 | 1,881.046 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,885.172 | 1,908.782 | -936.586 | 1,873.172 | 7.873 | 3 | 0.049 |
els | null | 3 | 2,330.658 | 2,342.463 | -1,162.329 | 2,324.658 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,326.678 | 2,350.287 | -1,157.339 | 2,314.678 | 9.980 | 3 | 0.019 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,651.152 | 2,662.957 | -1,322.576 | 2,645.152 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,638.783 | 2,662.392 | -1,313.391 | 2,626.783 | 18.369 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,185.607 | 2,197.411 | -1,089.803 | 2,179.607 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,183.870 | 2,207.479 | -1,085.935 | 2,171.870 | 7.737 | 3 | 0.052 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,054.216 | 2,066.020 | -1,024.108 | 2,048.216 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,048.592 | 2,072.202 | -1,018.296 | 2,036.592 | 11.623 | 3 | 0.009 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,603.512 | 2,615.317 | -1,298.756 | 2,597.512 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,598.767 | 2,622.377 | -1,293.384 | 2,586.767 | 10.745 | 3 | 0.013 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,401.218 | 1,413.023 | -697.609 | 1,395.218 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,406.487 | 1,430.096 | -697.243 | 1,394.487 | 0.732 | 3 | 0.866 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,961.481 | 1,973.286 | -977.740 | 1,955.481 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,960.901 | 1,984.510 | -974.450 | 1,948.901 | 6.580 | 3 | 0.087 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,093.529 | 2,105.334 | -1,043.765 | 2,087.529 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,090.327 | 2,113.936 | -1,039.163 | 2,078.327 | 9.202 | 3 | 0.027 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,478.004 | 2,489.808 | -1,236.002 | 2,472.004 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,474.831 | 2,498.440 | -1,231.415 | 2,462.831 | 9.173 | 3 | 0.027 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,127.039 | 2,138.844 | -1,060.519 | 2,121.039 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,124.628 | 2,148.237 | -1,056.314 | 2,112.628 | 8.411 | 3 | 0.038 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,749.800 | 1,761.605 | -871.900 | 1,743.800 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,744.365 | 1,767.974 | -866.182 | 1,732.365 | 11.436 | 3 | 0.010 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,887.899 | 1,899.703 | -940.949 | 1,881.899 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,880.853 | 1,904.463 | -934.427 | 1,868.853 | 13.045 | 3 | 0.005 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,974.733 | 1,986.537 | -984.366 | 1,968.733 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,966.971 | 1,990.581 | -977.486 | 1,954.971 | 13.761 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,977.608 | 1,989.413 | -985.804 | 1,971.608 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,972.725 | 1,996.334 | -980.362 | 1,960.725 | 10.883 | 3 | 0.012 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,983.146 | 1,994.950 | -988.573 | 1,977.146 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,974.215 | 1,997.824 | -981.107 | 1,962.215 | 14.931 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,743.687 | 2,755.492 | -1,368.844 | 2,737.687 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,733.307 | 2,756.916 | -1,360.654 | 2,721.307 | 16.380 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 119 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 119 | 3.08 ± 1.21 | 0.454 | 0.123 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 71 | 3.25 ± 1.18 | -0.053 | 69 | 3.43 ± 1.18 | -0.359 | 0.380 | -0.183 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 119 | 18.01 ± 2.97 | 119 | 17.85 ± 2.97 | 0.679 | 0.091 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 71 | 17.82 ± 2.71 | 0.107 | 69 | 18.50 ± 2.70 | -0.370 | 0.138 | -0.386 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 119 | 29.82 ± 5.70 | 119 | 30.13 ± 5.70 | 0.674 | -0.105 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 71 | 30.46 ± 5.05 | -0.218 | 69 | 32.10 ± 5.02 | -0.666 | 0.055 | -0.553 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 119 | 11.61 ± 2.12 | 119 | 11.70 ± 2.12 | 0.759 | -0.065 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 71 | 11.70 ± 1.95 | -0.068 | 69 | 12.08 ± 1.94 | -0.292 | 0.253 | -0.289 |
ras_goal | 1st | 119 | 17.23 ± 3.33 | 119 | 17.58 ± 3.33 | 0.415 | -0.188 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 71 | 17.48 ± 3.01 | -0.134 | 69 | 18.44 ± 2.99 | -0.456 | 0.060 | -0.509 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 119 | 13.16 ± 2.93 | 119 | 13.34 ± 2.93 | 0.643 | -0.113 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 71 | 13.47 ± 2.61 | -0.198 | 69 | 14.16 ± 2.60 | -0.524 | 0.120 | -0.439 |
ras_domination | 1st | 119 | 10.02 ± 2.41 | 119 | 9.62 ± 2.41 | 0.208 | 0.248 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 71 | 10.06 ± 2.26 | -0.027 | 69 | 10.48 ± 2.25 | -0.540 | 0.268 | -0.265 |
symptom | 1st | 119 | 31.36 ± 9.90 | 119 | 30.12 ± 9.90 | 0.334 | 0.255 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 71 | 29.99 ± 8.68 | 0.282 | 69 | 28.74 ± 8.63 | 0.283 | 0.394 | 0.256 |
slof_work | 1st | 119 | 22.27 ± 4.59 | 119 | 22.08 ± 4.59 | 0.746 | 0.077 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 71 | 22.55 ± 4.12 | -0.111 | 69 | 22.81 ± 4.10 | -0.290 | 0.710 | -0.102 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 119 | 24.68 ± 5.74 | 119 | 25.48 ± 5.74 | 0.284 | -0.252 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 71 | 24.61 ± 5.15 | 0.021 | 69 | 26.16 ± 5.13 | -0.213 | 0.077 | -0.486 |
satisfaction | 1st | 119 | 19.90 ± 7.23 | 119 | 21.08 ± 7.23 | 0.210 | -0.308 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 71 | 20.81 ± 6.43 | -0.238 | 69 | 22.26 ± 6.39 | -0.310 | 0.182 | -0.380 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 119 | 10.77 ± 3.74 | 119 | 10.96 ± 3.74 | 0.703 | -0.101 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 71 | 11.20 ± 3.27 | -0.233 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.25 | -0.145 | 0.967 | -0.013 |
mhc_social | 1st | 119 | 15.34 ± 6.13 | 119 | 15.32 ± 6.13 | 0.975 | 0.008 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 71 | 16.01 ± 5.41 | -0.213 | 69 | 15.97 ± 5.38 | -0.208 | 0.967 | 0.012 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 119 | 21.84 ± 7.06 | 119 | 21.90 ± 7.06 | 0.949 | -0.016 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 71 | 22.94 ± 6.24 | -0.303 | 69 | 22.61 ± 6.21 | -0.196 | 0.756 | 0.091 |
resilisnce | 1st | 119 | 16.29 ± 4.39 | 119 | 17.02 ± 4.39 | 0.205 | -0.284 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 71 | 17.14 ± 3.99 | -0.335 | 69 | 18.51 ± 3.97 | -0.589 | 0.042 | -0.539 |
social_provision | 1st | 119 | 13.24 ± 2.84 | 119 | 13.95 ± 2.84 | 0.056 | -0.437 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 71 | 13.10 ± 2.57 | 0.092 | 69 | 14.27 ± 2.56 | -0.199 | 0.007 | -0.728 |
els_value_living | 1st | 119 | 16.88 ± 3.20 | 119 | 17.25 ± 3.20 | 0.374 | -0.208 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 71 | 17.23 ± 2.88 | -0.197 | 69 | 17.92 ± 2.87 | -0.373 | 0.161 | -0.383 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 119 | 12.50 ± 3.34 | 119 | 13.17 ± 3.34 | 0.126 | -0.383 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 71 | 12.76 ± 2.96 | -0.147 | 69 | 13.72 ± 2.94 | -0.321 | 0.054 | -0.557 |
els | 1st | 119 | 29.39 ± 6.06 | 119 | 30.42 ± 6.06 | 0.189 | -0.342 | ||
els | 2nd | 71 | 30.01 ± 5.33 | -0.207 | 69 | 31.64 ± 5.30 | -0.403 | 0.071 | -0.537 |
social_connect | 1st | 119 | 27.56 ± 9.24 | 119 | 26.53 ± 9.24 | 0.389 | 0.230 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 71 | 27.42 ± 8.08 | 0.031 | 69 | 23.54 ± 8.03 | 0.667 | 0.005 | 0.866 |
shs_agency | 1st | 119 | 13.97 ± 5.07 | 119 | 14.92 ± 5.07 | 0.153 | -0.384 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 71 | 14.41 ± 4.43 | -0.177 | 69 | 15.72 ± 4.40 | -0.326 | 0.081 | -0.534 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 119 | 15.43 ± 4.13 | 119 | 16.39 ± 4.13 | 0.075 | -0.442 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 71 | 15.97 ± 3.67 | -0.252 | 69 | 17.20 ± 3.65 | -0.377 | 0.048 | -0.567 |
shs | 1st | 119 | 29.40 ± 8.78 | 119 | 31.30 ± 8.78 | 0.096 | -0.448 | ||
shs | 2nd | 71 | 30.38 ± 7.67 | -0.231 | 69 | 32.91 ± 7.62 | -0.380 | 0.051 | -0.596 |
esteem | 1st | 119 | 12.80 ± 1.60 | 119 | 12.71 ± 1.60 | 0.686 | 0.070 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 71 | 12.65 ± 1.54 | 0.124 | 69 | 12.67 ± 1.54 | 0.036 | 0.936 | -0.018 |
mlq_search | 1st | 119 | 14.49 ± 3.46 | 119 | 15.09 ± 3.46 | 0.178 | -0.271 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 71 | 15.36 ± 3.22 | -0.389 | 69 | 15.18 ± 3.21 | -0.041 | 0.752 | 0.077 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 119 | 13.31 ± 4.20 | 119 | 13.69 ± 4.20 | 0.488 | -0.151 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 71 | 14.24 ± 3.84 | -0.370 | 69 | 14.48 ± 3.82 | -0.318 | 0.702 | -0.099 |
mlq | 1st | 119 | 27.80 ± 6.96 | 119 | 28.78 ± 6.96 | 0.277 | -0.234 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 71 | 29.59 ± 6.37 | -0.428 | 69 | 29.68 ± 6.35 | -0.213 | 0.938 | -0.020 |
empower | 1st | 119 | 19.00 ± 4.52 | 119 | 19.51 ± 4.52 | 0.382 | -0.209 | ||
empower | 2nd | 71 | 19.94 ± 4.04 | -0.384 | 69 | 20.14 ± 4.02 | -0.257 | 0.768 | -0.082 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 119 | 14.42 ± 2.55 | 119 | 14.35 ± 2.55 | 0.839 | 0.038 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 71 | 14.82 ± 2.41 | -0.226 | 69 | 15.23 ± 2.41 | -0.500 | 0.308 | -0.236 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 119 | 11.76 ± 3.07 | 119 | 11.74 ± 3.07 | 0.966 | 0.008 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 71 | 11.22 ± 2.89 | 0.257 | 69 | 10.65 ± 2.88 | 0.525 | 0.241 | 0.276 |
sss_affective | 1st | 119 | 10.40 ± 3.69 | 119 | 10.57 ± 3.69 | 0.726 | -0.086 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 71 | 9.92 ± 3.29 | 0.247 | 69 | 9.46 ± 3.27 | 0.564 | 0.412 | 0.232 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 119 | 10.22 ± 3.75 | 119 | 10.07 ± 3.75 | 0.756 | 0.078 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 71 | 9.50 ± 3.32 | 0.370 | 69 | 9.30 ± 3.30 | 0.395 | 0.722 | 0.103 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 119 | 8.74 ± 3.75 | 119 | 9.07 ± 3.75 | 0.501 | -0.168 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 71 | 8.18 ± 3.33 | 0.287 | 69 | 7.95 ± 3.31 | 0.572 | 0.686 | 0.116 |
sss | 1st | 119 | 29.36 ± 10.55 | 119 | 29.71 ± 10.55 | 0.801 | -0.069 | ||
sss | 2nd | 71 | 27.64 ± 9.19 | 0.345 | 69 | 26.79 ± 9.13 | 0.584 | 0.584 | 0.170 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(339.28) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)
2st
t(373.99) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.57)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(292.32) = -0.41, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)
2st
t(369.12) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.58)
ras_confidence
1st
t(277.96) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.76)
2st
t(360.22) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.31)
ras_willingness
1st
t(297.12) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)
2st
t(370.71) = 1.14, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)
ras_goal
1st
t(286.45) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)
2st
t(366.38) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.96)
ras_reliance
1st
t(280.42) = 0.46, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)
2st
t(362.33) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.55)
ras_domination
1st
t(307.24) = -1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)
2st
t(372.74) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.17)
symptom
1st
t(273.29) = -0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.28)
2st
t(355.31) = -0.85, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.13 to 1.63)
slof_work
1st
t(283.49) = -0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.98)
2st
t(364.57) = 0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.62)
slof_relationship
1st
t(284.13) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.26)
2st
t(364.99) = 1.77, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.25)
satisfaction
1st
t(279.68) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)
2st
t(361.72) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.58)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(272.77) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)
2st
t(354.68) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.11)
mhc_social
1st
t(276.06) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)
2st
t(358.37) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.75)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(276.75) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.86)
2st
t(359.07) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.74)
resilisnce
1st
t(289.31) = 1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.84)
2st
t(367.84) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.69)
social_provision
1st
t(287.43) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)
2st
t(366.91) = 2.72, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.32 to 2.03)
els_value_living
1st
t(284.94) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)
2st
t(365.50) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.64)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(277.84) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)
2st
t(360.10) = 1.93, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.95)
els
1st
t(274.47) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)
2st
t(356.67) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.14 to 3.39)
social_connect
1st
t(272.22) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)
2st
t(353.99) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.21)
shs_agency
1st
t(271.87) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.23)
2st
t(353.55) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.78)
shs_pathway
1st
t(279.08) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.01)
2st
t(361.21) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.45)
shs
1st
t(271.83) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)
2st
t(353.50) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.01 to 5.07)
esteem
1st
t(328.21) = -0.40, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)
2st
t(373.96) = 0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.53)
mlq_search
1st
t(304.08) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)
2st
t(372.26) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.90)
mlq_presence
1st
t(292.71) = 0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.45)
2st
t(369.27) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)
mlq
1st
t(294.66) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)
2st
t(369.96) = 0.08, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.20)
empower
1st
t(282.30) = 0.87, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.67)
2st
t(363.75) = 0.29, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.54)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(314.35) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.58)
2st
t(373.45) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.22)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(311.08) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)
2st
t(373.18) = -1.17, p = 0.241, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.39)
sss_affective
1st
t(280.32) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.11)
2st
t(362.24) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.64)
sss_behavior
1st
t(277.59) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)
2st
t(359.87) = -0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.90)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(278.16) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)
2st
t(360.40) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.88)
sss
1st
t(270.33) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.04)
2st
t(351.48) = -0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.89 to 2.20)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(183.30) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.64)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(161.47) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.22)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(155.43) = 4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.94)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(163.53) = 1.79, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(158.99) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(156.46) = 3.17, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(167.94) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(153.49) = -1.70, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(157.75) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(158.02) = 1.29, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.71)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(156.15) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.43)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(153.28) = 0.87, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(154.64) = 1.26, p = 0.421, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.67)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(154.93) = 1.18, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(160.20) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.67 to 2.32)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(159.40) = 1.21, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(158.35) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(155.38) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)
els
1st vs 2st
t(153.98) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.21)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(153.05) = -4.02, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to -1.52)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(152.90) = 1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(155.90) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(152.88) = 2.28, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.00)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(177.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(166.55) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(161.64) = 1.94, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(162.47) = 1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.26)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(157.25) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.43)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(171.12) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(169.65) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.76 to -0.42)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(156.42) = -3.41, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.47)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(155.28) = -2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.40 to -0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(155.52) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(152.26) = -3.51, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.56 to -1.27)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(181.33) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.35)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(160.48) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.38)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(154.70) = 1.33, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.60)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(162.44) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(158.10) = 0.82, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.86)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(155.68) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.81)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(166.65) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.55)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(152.84) = -1.72, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.95 to 0.20)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(156.91) = 0.68, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(157.17) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.95)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(155.39) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(152.64) = 1.42, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.02)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(153.95) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.67)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(154.22) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.27)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(159.25) = 2.06, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.66)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(158.50) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.37)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(157.50) = 1.21, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(154.65) = 0.90, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.81)
els
1st vs 2st
t(153.31) = 1.26, p = 0.417, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.60)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(152.42) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.31)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(152.28) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.23)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(155.15) = 1.54, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(152.26) = 1.41, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.36)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(175.93) = -0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.23)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(165.33) = 2.42, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.58)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(160.64) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.73)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(161.43) = 2.64, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.14)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(156.44) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.73)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(169.70) = 1.41, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.95)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(168.29) = -1.61, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.12)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(155.64) = -1.51, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.15)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(154.55) = -2.27, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.34 to -0.09)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(154.78) = -1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(151.67) = -2.10, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.35 to -0.10)
Plot
